Progress on Immortal

[Txurce]

I am now on a third consecutive Science game with Indonesia where I really have them in good shape, going Progress/Piety, and then Rationalism (Industry only made sense to me if I was going to go serious war late.) This is probably my best one: around t280 or so, I'm basically tied for the science and policy lead withSonghai, and am third in pop and miltary, with the best navy.

And my happiness at the moment?

-52. It's a statement to how well everything else is going that I'm only losing 75gpt.

So what do I think is going wrong, every single game, as I hit the Industrial era? Maybe culture. My drop in score seems to coincide as I lose my tourism edge on the small fry, and fall behind the big boys. Right now I'm 2 levels behind Songhai, and one behind Indonesia.

Does this make sense, and if so, what do I do about it? I build Guilds asap and put specialists in them, and eventually add circuses, amphitheaters, etc. I tend to avoid the cultural GWs, because (as I mentioned in the first post), I burn every GA and GW. Not one goes into an institution of culture until I hit Archeology, and grab a few trinkets.

More important than my problems, this is the third consecutive game I've played with the new patch on a continents map where either the Aztecs or Songhai take Authority/Statecraft/Rationalism (my usual for those two!), build every GW except the ones I gun for, and conquer their entire continent by the end of the Renaissance. In the last 2 games the perpetually warring Aztecs won a CV, and Songhai (popular with everyone now) will be there right around t300 as well.

A CV comes much too fast compared to all the other victory conditions in all 3 of these games. But more probleatic is that something has made the runaway civ problem much worse. I can't remember the last time a civ conquered its 3 neighbors in the Renaissance, and now I've seen it 3 games in a row.

 

[CrazyG]

I am now on a third consecutive Science game with Indonesia where I really have them in good shape, going Progress/Piety, and then Rationalism (Industry only made sense to me if I was going to go serious war late.) This is probably my best one: around t280 or so, I'm basically tied for the science and policy lead withSonghai, and am third in pop and miltary, with the best navy.

And my happiness at the moment?

-52. It's a statement to how well everything else is going that I'm only losing 75gpt.

So what do I think is going wrong, every single game, as I hit the Industrial era? Maybe culture. My drop in score seems to coincide as I lose my tourism edge on the small fry, and fall behind the big boys. Right now I'm 2 levels behind Songhai, and one behind Indonesia.

Does this make sense, and if so, what do I do about it? I build Guilds asap and put specialists in them, and eventually add circuses, amphitheaters, etc. I tend to avoid the cultural GWs, because (as I mentioned in the first post), I burn every GA and GW. Not one goes into an institution of culture until I hit Archeology, and grab a few trinkets.

More important than my problems, this is the third consecutive game I've played with the new patch on a continents map where either the Aztecs or Songhai take Authority/Statecraft/Rationalism (my usual for those two!), build every GW except the ones I gun for, and conquer their entire continent by the end of the Renaissance. In the last 2 games the perpetually warring Aztecs won a CV, and Songhai (popular with everyone now) will be there right around t300 as well.

A CV comes much too fast compared to all the other victory conditions in all 3 of these games. But more problematic is that something has made the runaway civ problem much worse. I can't remember the last time a civ conquered its 3 neighbors in the Renaissance, and now I've seen it 3 games in a row.

I think this most recent update made science wins a lot harder, the late game lasts longer, so more time for tourism to accumulate and for enemies to conquer the world.

Maybe try getting some great works, long term its potentially more culture. I sometimes plan to get a specific themeing bonus (like on the national college). I wouldn't prioritize spamming artists for golden ages unless you have a specific synergy. You could also try another civ, Indonesia doesn't strike me as having great late game (it sounds like that is what you need). Maybe someone with light science boosts or GP rate could help you finish strong?

I'm also seeing warmongers do really well, in my games its Mongolia. Had a game where at Modern era there were only 3 City States left (at least I don't have to worry about diplo wins)

 

[ElliotS]

I am now on a third consecutive Science game with Indonesia where I really have them in good shape, going Progress/Piety, and then Rationalism (Industry only made sense to me if I was going to go serious war late.) This is probably my best one: around t280 or so, I'm basically tied for the science and policy lead withSonghai, and am third in pop and miltary, with the best navy.

And my happiness at the moment?

-52. It's a statement to how well everything else is going that I'm only losing 75gpt.

So what do I think is going wrong, every single game, as I hit the Industrial era? Maybe culture. My drop in score seems to coincide as I lose my tourism edge on the small fry, and fall behind the big boys. Right now I'm 2 levels behind Songhai, and one behind Indonesia.

Does this make sense, and if so, what do I do about it? I build Guilds asap and put specialists in them, and eventually add circuses, amphitheaters, etc. I tend to avoid the cultural GWs, because (as I mentioned in the first post), I burn every GA and GW. Not one goes into an institution of culture until I hit Archeology, and grab a few trinkets.

More important than my problems, this is the third consecutive game I've played with the new patch on a continents map where either the Aztecs or Songhai take Authority/Statecraft/Rationalism (my usual for those two!), build every GW except the ones I gun for, and conquer their entire continent by the end of the Renaissance. In the last 2 games the perpetually warring Aztecs won a CV, and Songhai (popular with everyone now) will be there right around t300 as well.

A CV comes much too fast compared to all the other victory conditions in all 3 of these games. But more probleatic is that something has made the runaway civ problem much worse. I can't remember the last time a civ conquered its 3 neighbors in the Renaissance, and now I've seen it 3 games in a row.

Consider some of the happiness religious beliefs? Where is all of it coming from anyways?

 

[Txurce]

Consider some of the happiness religious beliefs? Where is all of it coming from anyways?

Well, that's my question. I wonder if it's insufficient tourism, as it omes at the same time every game -- just as the heavy culture civs start gaining influence on me. I've tried the happy religious beliefs, but I don't always spread my religion sufficiently for it to make a difference. I'm now trying something different: Way of the Pilgrim/Cathdrals/Synagogues/Ritual. That ought to keep me abreast in tourism. Let's see what happens.

 

[Strigvir]

You take Piety and don't spread religion sufficiently? How does it even work?

 

[Owlbebach]

I've never had so much problems with happiness, the only way i can imagine you get it is different ideology. However if i go scientific victory - i just adopt the ideology that was chosen by the rest of the world. Even if it is autocracy, its not that bad, something like synagogues or jesuit education gives you much more, also you can always go industry instead of some useless ideological tenets

 

[vyyt]

I have no advice, but I think it would be interesting to post a screenshot of your (un) happiness breakdown.

 

[Txurce]

You take Piety and don't spread religion sufficiently? How does it even work?

It didn't passively spread in games in which I took Statecraft, and had strong competition. But in one recent Piety game, another religious civ outmuscled me.

I've never had so much problems with happiness, the only way i can imagine you get it is different ideology. However if i go scientific victory - i just adopt the ideology that was chosen by the rest of the world. Even if it is autocracy, its not that bad, something like synagogues or jesuit education gives you much more, also you can always go industry instead of some useless ideological tenets

Industry instead of mediocre ideological tenets is a good idea. And I do intend to go with the leader ideologically, although if I'm first, it sometimes means backtracking.

I have no advice, but I think it would be interesting to post a screenshot of your (un) happiness breakdown.

I just started a new game, so that'll have to wait. But it's the usual: either crime or poverty, with specialists third. There's the occasional bored city, but that's easy to take care of.

 

[Owlbebach]

It didn't passively spread in games in which I took Statecraft, and had strong competition. But in one recent Piety game, another religious civ outmuscled me.



Industry instead of mediocre ideological tenets is a good idea. And I do intend to go with the leader ideologically, although if I'm first, it sometimes means backtracking.



I just started a new game, so that'll have to wait. But it's the usual: either crime or poverty, with specialists third. There's the occasional bored city, but that's easy to take care of.

I've never been first to ideology on immortal, my friend was but for korea, and he won on turn 286...
Do you spread your trade routes among your cities? Less gold in total, but it helps a lot against povetry

 

[Workerspam]

I've experienced the big happiness swings with wide Progress (worst was playing with events and getting a -10 gold per city for minor benefit event that most of my cities couldn't even utilize; if I recall correctly my happiness dropped by about 60 in a single turn). Industry is great for combating Poverty with it's 20% reduction policy; in some games that's the policy that cements my choice between it and Rationalism. Don't overlook Constabularies for crime reduction; it may be the best building in the game for that purpose.

 

[infidel88]

You will never have excess until you hit order and get all tenets that reduce thresholds. Then you will suddenly jump to +100 or so (depending on your empire size of course). At least that was my case - spam a lot of small cities close to each other, try to build all wonders who give -thresholds or stuff like Angkor Wat and such. If you go progress and superwide (which I always do) - wonders who give +x yields or +x% to single city are usually not worth it. The key is to have balanced empire and never stop expanding. You need to keep creating buildings, as they give you money and other bonuses. And you can easily sacrifice 4-5 cities to build units only - this way you will easily outproduce any authority/tradition civ. Oh, not to mention how much faith you gonna get. And how easily will you win Grand Canal or Olympics. Or how many diplo units can you spam getting infinite paper. Try that with tradition

 

[Txurce]

I've never been first to ideology on immortal, my friend was but for korea, and he won on turn 286...
Do you spread your trade routes among your cities? Less gold in total, but it helps a lot against povetry

I do when I get in trouble.

I've experienced the big happiness swings with wide Progress (worst was playing with events and getting a -10 gold per city for minor benefit event that most of my cities couldn't even utilize; if I recall correctly my happiness dropped by about 60 in a single turn). Industry is great for combating Poverty with it's 20% reduction policy; in some games that's the policy that cements my choice between it and Rationalism. Don't overlook Constabularies for crime reduction; it may be the best building in the game for that purpose.

I use Constabularies. And today I had just taken the GA policy in Rationalism when I saw your post. I then switched to Industry for 2 policies, picking up the 20% reduction. (More on the results below.)

You will never have excess until you hit order and get all tenets that reduce thresholds. Then you will suddenly jump to +100 or so (depending on your empire size of course). At least that was my case - spam a lot of small cities close to each other, try to build all wonders who give -thresholds or stuff like Angkor Wat and such. If you go progress and superwide (which I always do) - wonders who give +x yields or +x% to single city are usually not worth it. The key is to have balanced empire and never stop expanding. You need to keep creating buildings, as they give you money and other bonuses. And you can easily sacrifice 4-5 cities to build units only - this way you will easily outproduce any authority/tradition civ. Oh, not to mention how much faith you gonna get. And how easily will you win Grand Canal or Olympics. Or how many diplo units can you spam getting infinite paper. Try that with tradition

One of the problems with tourism issues is that that you sometimes have to pick the ideology the leader takes. In the game I just finished, it was Freedom. But I do intend to go for Order if I'm up first (which happens 50% of the time). BTW, I often win the Grand Canal, because I really focus on it. But I've never built a bunch of small cities... I'm really a Tradition guy broadening my skills. How does that affect your culture?

*
In the game I just finished, Indonesia finished 2d in science and pop with just 11 cities, and at +10 happiness that never got below -13. A strange start put 7 civs on one continent and one civ on its own medium-sized one, so I had no across-the-ocean behemoth to stop. I still lost a CV to the Iroquois on t319 (and except for one civ, it would have been in the 280s). Particularly now that science has been slowed in the Industrial era (which is fine with me), it's very, very hard to head off a cultural frontrunner in time.

Still, this was a breakthrough for me in terms of performance. My #2 pop came thanks to conquest, and strong focus on growth. I tried to prop up my tourism with Way of the Pilgrim/Cathedrals/Synagogues/Ritual/TTGoG. I spread well, but Brazil's religion got an early start, so even though it lost its capital, eventually Sweden took over some of my spread. Then, as mentioned above, I took the Free Trade policy, which improved my happiness by 7 in one turn, and then kept me functional the rest of the game. I also managed to be the head of the WC about half the time.

I'm not sure what I can do to head off CV's around t300, but with your collective help, I've actually got a Progress Indonesia seriously competing for a SV.

 

[tu_79]

I have the same problem as Txurce. I'm Tradition-minded, trying to go Progress for the learning. I thought I was ready to move up to Emperor, but I'm getting **cked seriously. Sometimes I made silly and avoidable mistakes, like losing a Settler to a barb camp, but I don't want to reload, that's cheating in my view. Last game, I was doing a little better, made what I thought was a good army and received a trade for declaring war to Aztecs. Fine, with some horseman and archers and catapults, I can defend myself. The Aztecs conquered India and were a threat, better to stop them now. I was wrong. Monty finished the Terracota Army and swarmed my cities.
I've never seen so many units in King difficulty. Admittedly, most of my games were tradition-peaceful, and whenever I tried Authority, I was leading the fight with well trained units, so I never had problems removing their units. It was the tedious of waiting for the siege units what slowed me. This is different. I knew Aztecs had a stronger army since they completely conquered India, but I couldn't imagine I would need 3 to 1 and my city walls to kill some of their units. I guess I had too many horseman and too few spearsman to hold the line.
Maybe what a Progress player need for a starter army is a defensive one.

 

[Owlbebach]

I have the same problem as Txurce. I'm Tradition-minded, trying to go Progress for the learning. I thought I was ready to move up to Emperor, but I'm getting **cked seriously. Sometimes I made silly and avoidable mistakes, like losing a Settler to a barb camp, but I don't want to reload, that's cheating in my view. Last game, I was doing a little better, made what I thought was a good army and received a trade for declaring war to Aztecs. Fine, with some horseman and archers and catapults, I can defend myself. The Aztecs conquered India and were a threat, better to stop them now. I was wrong. Monty finished the Terracota Army and swarmed my cities.
I've never seen so many units in King difficulty. Admittedly, most of my games were tradition-peaceful, and whenever I tried Authority, I was leading the fight with well trained units, so I never had problems removing their units. It was the tedious of waiting for the siege units what slowed me. This is different. I knew Aztecs had a stronger army since they completely conquered India, but I couldn't imagine I would need 3 to 1 and my city walls to kill some of their units. I guess I had too many horseman and too few spearsman to hold the line.
Maybe what a Progress player need for a starter army is a defensive one.

Progress is the most peacefull branch. You just do not have any advantages, even tradition is way better. You will always be behind. You should not go fight with it.

 

[ashendashin]

I have the same problem as Txurce. I'm Tradition-minded, trying to go Progress for the learning. I thought I was ready to move up to Emperor, but I'm getting **cked seriously. Sometimes I made silly and avoidable mistakes, like losing a Settler to a barb camp, but I don't want to reload, that's cheating in my view. Last game, I was doing a little better, made what I thought was a good army and received a trade for declaring war to Aztecs. Fine, with some horseman and archers and catapults, I can defend myself. The Aztecs conquered India and were a threat, better to stop them now. I was wrong. Monty finished the Terracota Army and swarmed my cities.
I've never seen so many units in King difficulty. Admittedly, most of my games were tradition-peaceful, and whenever I tried Authority, I was leading the fight with well trained units, so I never had problems removing their units. It was the tedious of waiting for the siege units what slowed me. This is different. I knew Aztecs had a stronger army since they completely conquered India, but I couldn't imagine I would need 3 to 1 and my city walls to kill some of their units. I guess I had too many horseman and too few spearsman to hold the line.
Maybe what a Progress player need for a starter army is a defensive one.

You definitely had too many horsemen. Against aggressive civs like the Aztecs, you absolutely need to take advantage of fortification and skirmishers. I usually avoid fighting them until I have a tech advantage so I can finish off their heavily promoted units quickly with mounted units waiting in the back. Otherwise it's a tedious process to get rid of their standing army while they're spamming more units to fill it in, but it gets there, provided that you steadily remove their most dangerous units.

I kinda lost a lot of the guilt for reloading on higher difficulties when it comes to stupid mistakes. The bonuses the AI gets sort of offsets it, so long as you don't take it too far like I did when I managed to get the Mongols off my back in the face of doom.

 

[peterw1987]

Progress is the most peacefull branch. You just do not have any advantages, even tradition is way better. You will always be behind. You should not go fight with it.

Tradition has extra garrison bonus damage. Progress has nothing to do with defense.

 

[Owlbebach]

Tradition has extra garrison bonus damage. Progress has nothing to do with defense.

thats waht i'm saying. Not only garrison, but a good capital, wich builds units fast

 

[infidel88]

Maybe what a Progress player need for a starter army is a defensive one.

Early war always cripples you. Always. If you have to sacrifice any of precious early game hammers for it (not to mention losing units!), there is only one beneficent - other civs. In addition - progress isn't suited well for early war, as you need to grab land, build cities, connect them and build some infrastructure. This will pay off in the long run. For me progress is most snowbally policy - at the start it's way worse than authority or tradition, but renaissance coming - it shines like gold.

Remember to skip all ancient wonders. Maybe Pyramids are worth it to create uber workers. You will get them in war later on. And once you create like 4-5 settlers, you can totally neglect them in your capital and start developing it, so you can grab some important wonders later on. Further settlers should be build by new cities - my general rule is - every city should found another city - location isn't that important (unless you play civ that has UB/UA that requests river or sea, like Cathage) - it's all about having many cities close to each other -> army that can move very fast if someone declares on you.

And of course god od commerce is a must. That's not even a question.

 

[tu_79]

Early war always cripples you. Always. If you have to sacrifice any of precious early game hammers for it (not to mention losing units!), there is only one beneficent - other civs. In addition - progress isn't suited well for early war, as you need to grab land, build cities, connect them and build some infrastructure. This will pay off in the long run. For me progress is most snowbally policy - at the start it's way worse than authority or tradition, but renaissance coming - it shines like gold.

Remember to skip all ancient wonders. Maybe Pyramids are worth it to create uber workers. You will get them in war later on. And once you create like 4-5 settlers, you can totally neglect them in your capital and start developing it, so you can grab some important wonders later on. Further settlers should be build by new cities - my general rule is - every city should found another city - location isn't that important (unless you play civ that has UB/UA that requests river or sea, like Cathage) - it's all about having many cities close to each other -> army that can move very fast if someone declares on you.

And of course god od commerce is a must. That's not even a question.

I believe Aztec was preparing for invading me, anyways. But I paid him his extortion, so maybe he would have spared me, not sure.

 

[ashendashin]

So much of this is contrary to my plays.

Early war always cripples you. Always.

Progress provides gold. Armies rise and fall on your gold output, so at best your statement is situational. Progress isn't the easiest for early war, but it certainly provides the yields for it. Sometimes you need to make space for a strong infrastructure, depending on your settings.

Remember to skip all ancient wonders.

I...No. That's a terrible mindset. It's a big question on Deity, but you should always make your goals depending on your capability. Sometimes everything is just right for construction.

Further settlers should be build by new cities - my general rule is - every city should found another city - location isn't that important

For someone that likes to have loads of cities all bunched up, you have a very time consuming way to expand. I find that having lots of strong cities early on makes for a secure and productive empire that will quickly provide all the needs to have the best capital in the world. Settlers in other cities are usually after building necessities and is highly dependent on how much land is available.
Location is important. To have the best positions, you often have to forward settle and block off sections of desirable land. Bunched up cities is only when I'm certain that I'll be fine within my own section of land.

And of course god od commerce is a must. That's not even a question.

I just don't get this one. I've never even taken that pantheon as it looks way too late to make use of. I suppose it fits your city spamming style well, but there's plenty of other useful ones for that too, such as Goddess of Wisdom.